9 ms·

Identity politics will destroy our country. Whatever happened to freedom of thought? Shameful

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Identity politics will destroy our country The idea of “our country” is, fundamentally, an expression of identity politics. Your disagreement is with other’s choice of primary identity, not with “identity politics” generally.
- asquabventured 6y ago
  Wrong my issue is with the recent liberal trend that a humans race, creed, sexual orientation, religious preference, outward appearance, etc are an individuals defining characteristic. And if you don't conform to the bucket they want to place you based on that identity they have created for you that you will be cancelled. It's extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.
  - nl 6y ago
    You'd have a point if the president wasn't trying to cancel kneeling NFL players. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/american-football/44910040 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/american-...
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    This is fever swamp boomer shit, go outdoors and stop listening to Fox
  - 3131s 6y ago
    You are missing the point.
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    These things are literally things which define you as a person, though. Of course there's more, but what makes you think that these things don't define a person? I also don't get the "You have to fit in a bucket" theory. What's an example you've experienced?
    - legolas2412 6y ago
      I guess the point is that a person should not be discriminated based on things they don't control, like race, sex, gender etc. But the trend being described here is exactly that. Affirmative action, curtailment of free speech etc. Even many diversity initiatives. It doesn't matter if it discriminates positively, contrary to society's past regressive discrimination. This positive discrimination goes against liberal principles.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>>I also don't get the "You have to fit in a bucket" theory. What's an example you've experienced? Straight from the mouth of Joe Biden: "If you don't know whether to vote for me or Trump you ain't black." Yeah, because a near-80yo white man is obviously the final arbiter of my ethnic identity if I don't conform to his politics.
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    I'm not very keen on calling that "liberal". For one, it goes against the very definition of liberalism, which covers equality and liberty. No individual should be judged based on factors they don't control. A liberal would not oppose free speech. But the main reason I disagree with this "liberal trend", which I'd call "leftist trend", is that I disagree with them and identify as a liberal.
- justwalt 6y ago
  I think we’re playing with words here. That’s really not what that poster meant when they said “identity politics”.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    No, really, the only difference is the identity around which it is organized: if the identity is membership in “our country”, the poster supports it, and he opposes the increasing political relevance of alternative primary identities as a threat to the power of his preferred identity.
    - mk81 6y ago
      Cue Teddy Roosevelt. As OP said, identity politics (i.e. I'm trans instead of I'm American) is extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.
tootie 6y ago
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Rogan is mostly an opinion guy but he has spread covid disinformation and hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged. That's not harmless self-expression. Spotify is under no obligation to host anyone's content and certainly not required to pay $100M for content that is detrimental to society.
- asquabventured 6y ago
  He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all sides and debate them on their merits. Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.
  - gadabout 6y ago
    > He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all sides and debate them on their merits. One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire. > Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas. Those individuals are still alive and loud depending on where you live.
    - cipher_system 6y ago
      > One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire. I haven't watched a lot of JRE but in general I see nothing wrong with people having the time to layout their thoughts and opinions more or less uninterrupted for an extended period of time and then listen to rebuttals and debate in comments or separate blog posts, videos etc. The other end is political debates or interviews with opinionated journalists where they barely have time to say a sentence at a time. This doesn't have to be bad but a lot of time its just bickering and platitudes. It doesn't provide much depth.

> Identity politics will destroy our country The idea of “our country” is, fundamentally, an expression of identity politics. Your disagreement is with other’s choice of primary identity, not with “identity politics” generally.

asquabventured 6y ago
Wrong my issue is with the recent liberal trend that a humans race, creed, sexual orientation, religious preference, outward appearance, etc are an individuals defining characteristic. And if you don't conform to the bucket they want to place you based on that identity they have created for you that you will be cancelled. It's extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.
- nl 6y ago
  You'd have a point if the president wasn't trying to cancel kneeling NFL players. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/american-football/44910040 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/american-...
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  This is fever swamp boomer shit, go outdoors and stop listening to Fox
- 3131s 6y ago
  You are missing the point.
- 4ggr0 6y ago
  These things are literally things which define you as a person, though. Of course there's more, but what makes you think that these things don't define a person? I also don't get the "You have to fit in a bucket" theory. What's an example you've experienced?
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    I guess the point is that a person should not be discriminated based on things they don't control, like race, sex, gender etc. But the trend being described here is exactly that. Affirmative action, curtailment of free speech etc. Even many diversity initiatives. It doesn't matter if it discriminates positively, contrary to society's past regressive discrimination. This positive discrimination goes against liberal principles.
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    >>>I also don't get the "You have to fit in a bucket" theory. What's an example you've experienced? Straight from the mouth of Joe Biden: "If you don't know whether to vote for me or Trump you ain't black." Yeah, because a near-80yo white man is obviously the final arbiter of my ethnic identity if I don't conform to his politics.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  I'm not very keen on calling that "liberal". For one, it goes against the very definition of liberalism, which covers equality and liberty. No individual should be judged based on factors they don't control. A liberal would not oppose free speech. But the main reason I disagree with this "liberal trend", which I'd call "leftist trend", is that I disagree with them and identify as a liberal.
justwalt 6y ago
I think we’re playing with words here. That’s really not what that poster meant when they said “identity politics”.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  No, really, the only difference is the identity around which it is organized: if the identity is membership in “our country”, the poster supports it, and he opposes the increasing political relevance of alternative primary identities as a threat to the power of his preferred identity.
  - mk81 6y ago
    Cue Teddy Roosevelt. As OP said, identity politics (i.e. I'm trans instead of I'm American) is extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.

tootie 6y ago

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Rogan is mostly an opinion guy but he has spread covid disinformation and hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged. That's not harmless self-expression. Spotify is under no obligation to host anyone's content and certainly not required to pay $100M for content that is detrimental to society.

asquabventured 6y ago
He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all sides and debate them on their merits. Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.
- gadabout 6y ago
  > He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all sides and debate them on their merits. One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire. > Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas. Those individuals are still alive and loud depending on where you live.
  - cipher_system 6y ago
    > One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire. I haven't watched a lot of JRE but in general I see nothing wrong with people having the time to layout their thoughts and opinions more or less uninterrupted for an extended period of time and then listen to rebuttals and debate in comments or separate blog posts, videos etc. The other end is political debates or interviews with opinionated journalists where they barely have time to say a sentence at a time. This doesn't have to be bad but a lot of time its just bickering and platitudes. It doesn't provide much depth.